SciPolicy Journal files Amicus Curie Brief in Intelligent Design Case

Share Article

Editorial opposes government encroaching on science methods

Government should not mandate the teaching of intelligent design or encroach on methods of science. These are the positions of SCIPOLICY-THE JOURNAL OF SCIENCE AND HEALTH POLICY in dual actions today -- Amicus Currie brief filed in Federal Court (Kitzmiller et al vs. Dover Area School District et al) and an Editorial.

"The School District Administration fails to explain how stamping official imprimatur on an essentially faith based concept promotes a 'balanced view' of science in a public school setting and further, identify what educational value there is in a bland reference to intelligent design," argues SCIPOLICY'S attorney, Stanley M. Shingles of Conshohocken, Pennsylvania.

The School District's rationale is flawed. It maintains that classroom announcement (of Intelligent Design as an alternative to Evolution with reference to read another textbook in the library) is devoid of teaching content; and, teaching is different from simply making the announcement.

The proffered rationale is not supported by generally accepted principles in educational psychology and psycho-educational processes, which treat the teacher as a very powerful influence on students. The mandated announcement has an institutional influence, conveying legitimacy to the notion of intelligent design when in fact such notion is not sanctioned by the scientific community -- including The National Academies (of Science), the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the National Science Foundation (NSF), National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the panoply of physical science professional groups and associations.

"'Intelligent design' has never been a body of scientific results, nor even a program for eventually obtaining such results. It's not new science, fringe science, nor even junk science. It is merely window-dressing for a movement that is social, political, and, above all, theological down to its core, and which never had the least intention of doing disinterested science," states Dr. Norman Levitt, professor of Mathematics at Rutgers University, noted author, and SciPolicy Editorial Board Member.

"I'm pleased to see, finally, a responsible comment on this matter from a professional journal devoted to science studies and science policy," states Paul R. Gross, University Professor of Life Sciences, emeritus, University of Virginia, noted author, and SciPolicy Editorial Board Member.

The Amicus Court brief and editorial are available for review on SciPolicy's Web site:

SCIPOLICY-The Journal of Science and Health Policy(tm) of Haverford, Pennsylvania on Philadelphia's Main Line, is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal with Special Editions. Since its introduction in 2000, the Journal's Web site received over 80,000 visitors and almost 2 million hits. The Editorial Board is composed of 11 eminent scholars and researchers who are experts in science and health policy as well as research affairs and science education.

Contact: Stephen Miles Sacks, Ph.D., editor and publisher, 610-660-0220; Stanley M. Shingles, attorney for SciPolicy Journal, Tel: 610-828-3860.


Share article on social media or email:

View article via:

Pdf Print

Contact Author

Stephen Miles Sacks Phd